Saturday FAQ on Free Energy and BTG

The critical review on the topic of “free energy”, published last week, has given rise to questions, including on other resources. Therefore, while working on the promised material, I decided to release a small extraordinary FAQ - in order to constructively dot the “i” on particularly relevant topics.

Q: The decision of the French Academy of Sciences of 1775 to ban perpetual motion machines is a well-known historical fact. Which unambiguously hints at the existence of secret energy generation technologies, and their strictest concealment for the past two hundred years.


')
A: I hope after the arguments below, the issue with the Paris Academy of Sciences will be resolved once and for all for all seekers of SE.

Let's start with the exact wording: in fact, the French Academy of Sciences never forbade anyone anything. Scientists just officially refused to consider projects and ideas of perpetual motion machines. Government research is funded from the state. budget collected from taxpayers - that is, at our expense. So it was in the 18th century, and the same thing continues to this day. The question is legitimate: does it make sense to spend the extremely expensive working time of scientists for a free for the applicant consideration of the idea that came to him on an overcast morning after a hangover ? I focus attention on precisely - ideas, sketches, projects - that is, the fruits of imagination, the theoretical speculations of the authors ... It would be better if scientists are engaged in the creation of practically useful technologies - common sense suggests.

Now that is possible and allowed. Any investigator of the SE may contact a scientist for an explanation of why his ammeter shows super-unity, or even convene an expert committee to review a project - but only for a certain fee. Anyone can purchase devices and equipment of the widest spectrum for personal use - and not a single dog will ask “why do you need a gigahertz oscilloscope if you are not collecting things ...” Anyone can make a model on their own, or take a loan against property and order the production in production - unless of course the project has a collider scale. In my opinion, everything is fair, there are no restrictions. If you are sure - invest and do . And not sure - do not try to go with risky projects at the expense of others.

Q: For example, I first twitched when I read about conservation law (I even wanted to stumble on the minuses without reading further)

A: Science, despite its popularity in society, is a very closed system. Moreover, its secrecy does not come from secrecy, but primarily from a high educational level, which is necessary for understanding the depth of scientific issues. Whatever was going on behind the scenes, whatever seemingly insane hypotheses were discussed there - science releases proven knowledge and technology to the world. The engineer works with what is already explored and described by science. He uses the models provided to him, not really bothering what and how they are derived, the main thing is that they practically work.

Therefore, if a vechnyakostroitel comes to the engineer, such as he has invented something that violates the CEE - it is quite reasonable to drive it with a broom, without understanding it.
A scientist with such a formulation of the question, too, will put out the door, the formulation unequivocally says that the individual does not understand the fundamentals of physics, and it is expensive to engage in his education.
But if the question is formulated correctly from a scientific point of view, for example: “here’s the prototype, here’s the scheme, it seems superuniform, I don’t understand where the extra energy comes from” - it may make sense to pay attention, show the author where measurement errors or other jambs hide. True, the correctness of the formulations does not seek to distinguish the ethers, phyton-radiant energetics, and other shizotronshchiki - carrying instead of prototypes only their own ideas that are fundamentally incompatible with the scientific approach.

Q: Any heat pump has an efficiency of> 1 Even a home refrigerator, only no one suspects

A: Yes, yes, and most importantly, the producers are not aware that they are releasing the parties) In particular, those who have not read the comments on the original source ...
Seriously, a heat pump is an analogue of a conveyor belt that delivers energy from point “a” to point “b”. With a good set of circumstances, this transportation will take much less energy than the amount of transmitted energy - which, incidentally, must come from somewhere.

General scheme of any power supply system:



Here, Eo is the energy supplied to the input, for example, mechanical (recyclable).
At the output: useful - electricity E1, incidental but applicable - say, heat E2, and some of it goes to the loss.
A heat pump is just a subset of energy systems for which E2 is absent, and E0 and E1 are homogeneous forms of energy — heat. In this case, the power supply for own needs (air conditioning compressor pump) is provided from another source.

Q: Why did the participants of Canep7 who did not give out any ad-libbing there, but only wanted to convey the opinion of Bedini how the installation works?



A: It is for this reason that they zaminusovali, for the absence of "gag" in a scientific sense. For the contradiction between what was declared at the beginning : “I was interested in the studies of Bedini and therefore I can absolutely confidently say that you didn’t understand the essence of his invention (discovery). There the matter is quite different, ” and by the fact that it came to light when the situation cleared up. This kind of statement implies that we conducted our own research, or at least a technically competent analysis of the principles of work. But in fact, he gave a copy-paste version of the explanation of Bedini himself, which is already written on every fence known to all interested - without any personal elaboration.

Q: Why research freaks, I agree not particularly competent in what they do, considered the general opinion categorically unscientific?



A: Because science is at the forefront, it is exploring something that is not yet known by man. And it gives out new knowledge, technologies, methods, products - which previously humanity simply did not have in its arsenal. Research freaks are either philosophical in nature - where the unprovable and uncontestable general questions of being are discussed. Either okolotehnicheskoe creativity, in which the freak has a chance to learn something new for themselves. But all this has long been known to specialized specialists, so their work does not contribute to the expansion of a well-known picture of the world. Therefore, it is not scientific.